Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Bill Alessi, Founder & CEO, Alpha Modus
  • Burford Fires Opening Salvo Against Senate Tax Hike
Commercial Special Features

Casting a Worldwide Net: How Litigation Funders Can Leverage Europe’s New Unified Patent Court

The following article was contributed by Lionel Martin (Partner, August Debouzy), Pierre-Olivier Ally (Counsel, August Debouzy), Ben Quarmby (Partner, MoloLamken LLP) and Jonathan E. Barbee (Counsel, MoloLamken LLP). 

Europe’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) is on the cusp of launch, confirmed for this June 1, 2023.  It has been eagerly anticipated by the patent litigation community across the member states—starting with 17 European countries, but expected to extend rapidly to all of Europe minus Poland, Spain, Croatia, and, most notably, the UK.

The UPC has been long in the making: over ten years have passed since the agreement was first signed.  What is to be expected of this new court, and what opportunities does it present for litigation funders?

Uniformity and Scale.  The principal goal of the UPC is to offer a single, consistent, and coherent court system in Europe for the litigation of patents.  Historically, procedural differences in the member states’ national patent and court systems meant that the timeline of patent litigation could vary wildly from one jurisdiction to the next.  The jurisdictions also differed on substance: infringement, validity, and injunctive relief rulings were not consistently applied across the board.  And the one way in which the national jurisdictions were similar—comparatively low damages models—acted as further disincentive for patent owners looking to enforce their rights.

The UPC promises to overhaul that system entirely.  It is expected to issue speedy judgments on both infringement and validity.  It should set the scene for damages verdicts that are not only more consistent across jurisdictions, but also generally much greater in size—as one would expect for verdicts covering at least 17 member states.  And it promises greater accessibility and uniformity insofar as English will be the preeminent language of infringement proceedings in any matter involving allegations of infringement extending beyond a single member state.

The UPC must now live up to that promise, and there is some uncertainty as to how the system will play out in its early stages.  Will the court be able to keep up the expected pace?   What standards will the court rely on when imposing preliminary injunctions?  How will damages awards be limited or expanded?  How will the appellate process work?  How will early litigants help shape the law and jurisprudence of the UPC?

Those questions and many more will have to be answered in the coming months and years.  But if the UPC delivers on even part of its promised mandate, it may represent an exciting new arena for litigation funders working with patent owners to enforce their rights.  Indeed, there is reason to believe that the court will strive to be patentee-friendly—at least at the outset—in order to attract its “customers”.

Opportunities for Litigation Funding.  Many of the key features of the UPC as currently contemplated, align neatly with the incentives and priorities of litigation funders and patent owners.

  • Broader Geographic Reach. The UPC makes multi-jurisdictional patent campaigns cost-effective and efficient by allowing plaintiffs to target infringement across at least seventeen countries in one court proceeding.  Plaintiffs no longer need to pick and choose the countries in which to enforce their patents.  The reach of the UPC is likely to expand further: the UPC is expected to be integrated into European mutual recognition mechanisms that will allow the UPC’s jurisdiction to extend not only to the EU but also to Switzerland, Norway, and the UK.  While these mutual recognition mechanisms have long existed, national courts have historically been reluctant to rely on them.  The UPC, by contrast, is expected to do so much more regularly.
  • Reduced Transaction Costs. Reliance on a single proceeding across multiple countries will cut down on the costs of litigating in multiple European countries in parallel.  The UPC will therefore dramatically reduce the resources necessary to launch and maintain a multi-jurisdictional campaign in the EU.  The UPC will also cut down on the logistics and transactional costs associated with such campaigns.  A plaintiff, for example, no longer needs to hire three separate teams to enforce patents in, for instance, France, Germany, and Italy, and pay additional fees for those three teams to coordinate to ensure coherence across jurisdictions.
  • Short Time to Trial. UPC proceedings will expedite the pace of patent campaigns.  Some commentators suggest that proceedings will only take 12-15 months from complaint to final ruling—a significant boon for patent owners looking to promptly and efficiently enforce their rights.  If this holds true, and if sustainable, this pace would rival the speed of some of the fastest dockets among U.S. district courts.
  • Efficient Evidence Gathering Procedures. Unlike the U.S., there is no formal discovery in the UPC, which significantly reduces litigation costs and can expedite proceedings.  But the UPC offers several key features that will be of value to patent owners: (i) plaintiffs may move to seize evidence of infringement from a defendant’s premises, and (ii) they may obtain court orders to force defendants to produce documents.
  • Larger Damages Awards. Since UPC judgments will cover more countries and consumers, the potential damages awards should be considerably larger than they would be in a single jurisdiction.  This should help drive up the value of settlements, and put more pressure on defendants to settle earlier.  It also radically tips the scale on the economics of patent litigation funding in the EU.  Suddenly, the EU becomes an attractive venue in-and-of-itself for funders—not just an ancillary venue in support of higher-stakes U.S. litigation.
  • Broad Injunctive Relief. The UPC will allow patent holders to seek injunctive relief across multiple countries in one shot.  This too should help drive bigger and earlier settlements—a boon for funders looking for a rapid return on their investment. 
  • High-Quality Decisions. It is expected that the Court will render first-rate decisions for two principal reasons: (i) it has attracted seasoned IP judges from across Europe, and (ii) the judges consist of a mix of legally and technically qualified judges.  Furthermore, due to the high specialization of the Court, the number of judges will be quite limited (<100), which may help contribute to greater respect for precedent from fellow judges, which in turn leads to greater predictability for litigants.

Will the UPC be able to deliver on all of these fronts?  Only time will tell.  But for a savvy funder looking for an early mover advantage in a relatively underdeveloped market, and with the opportunity to potentially help shape early UPC jurisprudence in ways that will benefit patent owners for years to come, these are exciting times indeed . . . .

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.